Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 12:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon, the story changed when they didn't find the WMD. That's the inconsistency. Then, it became all about 'spreading democracy.' B/c they couldn't admit that they fucked up, Saddam had no real WMD, and they had made a terrible mistake, costing the country thousands of lives and probably a trillion dollars.

Why are you forcing me to explain the obvious to you? You know how the Bush crew wavered in their explanations and story about the invasion.

Cycloptichorn

President Bush consistently told the same story before the invasion and in the initial days of the invasion to justify it. He did not invade Iraq to spread democracy, even if he made reference later to spreading democracy. The idea that spreading democracy was the motivation is simply a falsehood, and if you disagree, you need only provide the quotation to back your opinion up, as I just have. He explained numerous times that it was a WMD disarmament issue.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 12:31 pm
@Brandon9000,
I think Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein made daddy look bad.

He asked for lousy intelligence so that he could justify the invasion...and now tries to blame lousy intelligence as the reason for why he invaded.

There always was the problem of lousy intelligence in the Oval Office while Bush was there. It was centered in the brain of the guy sitting in the chair behind the desk near the windows.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 12:36 pm
@Brandon9000,
Wow.. So you are calling Bush a liar then?
Quote:
We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator. It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place.

As I stated in a speech in the lead-up to the war, a liberated Iraq has showed the power of freedom to transform the Middle East by bringing hope and progress to the lives of millions.
So we are helping the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous, and an example for the broader Middle East.

The terrorists understand this. And that is why they have now made Iraq the central front in the war on terror.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.transcript/
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 12:53 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I think Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein made daddy look bad.

He asked for lousy intelligence so that he could justify the invasion...and now tries to blame lousy intelligence as the reason for why he invaded.

There always was the problem of lousy intelligence in the Oval Office while Bush was there. It was centered in the brain of the guy sitting in the chair behind the desk near the windows.

You may attribute any thinking you like to him, but if you're discussing what he actually said to justify it, it was WMD disarmament.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 12:55 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Wow.. So you are calling Bush a liar then?
Quote:
We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator. It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place.

As I stated in a speech in the lead-up to the war, a liberated Iraq has showed the power of freedom to transform the Middle East by bringing hope and progress to the lives of millions.
So we are helping the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous, and an example for the broader Middle East.

The terrorists understand this. And that is why they have now made Iraq the central front in the war on terror.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.transcript/

You didn't read my post. I asked for a quotation from the president justifying the invasion which comes from before or the initial days of the invasion. Get with the program and read a post before you reply.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 12:58 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
He did not invade Iraq to spread democracy, even if he made reference later to spreading democracy.


President Bush, at the American Enterprise Institute's annual dinner on February 26, 2003:

Quote:
The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.)

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving into place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry.

[...]

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause.)
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:01 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon, the story changed when they didn't find the WMD. That's the inconsistency. Then, it became all about 'spreading democracy.' B/c they couldn't admit that they fucked up, Saddam had no real WMD, and they had made a terrible mistake, costing the country thousands of lives and probably a trillion dollars.

Why are you forcing me to explain the obvious to you? You know how the Bush crew wavered in their explanations and story about the invasion.

Cycloptichorn

President Bush consistently told the same story before the invasion and in the initial days of the invasion to justify it. He did not invade Iraq to spread democracy, even if he made reference later to spreading democracy. The idea that spreading democracy was the motivation is simply a falsehood, and if you disagree, you need only provide the quotation to back your opinion up, as I just have. He explained numerous times that it was a WMD disarmament issue.


You're being intentionally mendacious. I'm well aware that WMD was the lie used to sell the war before it started; but after that was revealed as a lie, the justifications shifted to 'freedom spreading' and the like.

The Conservative community still supports that rationale for invasion and uses bad logical constructions to back it up ("Oh, so you wish Saddam was still in power then, cheese-eating surrender monkey?"). If the modern Conservative movement would admit that their leaders made a big mistake, and we're still paying for that mistake, perhaps there would be some credibility and recognition that they were being truthful. Instead, they either focus on the 'other' reasons for attacking, or they - like you - pretend that the mistake was somehow not a mistake, even though our intelligence was completely wrong and our money seems mostly wasted.

Cycloptichorn
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:04 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon, the story changed when they didn't find the WMD. That's the inconsistency. Then, it became all about 'spreading democracy.' B/c they couldn't admit that they fucked up, Saddam had no real WMD, and they had made a terrible mistake, costing the country thousands of lives and probably a trillion dollars.

Why are you forcing me to explain the obvious to you? You know how the Bush crew wavered in their explanations and story about the invasion.

Cycloptichorn

President Bush consistently told the same story before the invasion and in the initial days of the invasion to justify it. He did not invade Iraq to spread democracy, even if he made reference later to spreading democracy. The idea that spreading democracy was the motivation is simply a falsehood, and if you disagree, you need only provide the quotation to back your opinion up, as I just have. He explained numerous times that it was a WMD disarmament issue.


You're being intentionally mendacious. I'm well aware that WMD was the lie used to sell the war before it started; but after that was revealed as a lie, the justifications shifted to 'freedom spreading' and the like.

The Conservative community still supports that rationale for invasion and uses bad logical constructions to back it up ("Oh, so you wish Saddam was still in power then, cheese-eating surrender monkey?"). If the modern Conservative movement would admit that their leaders made a big mistake, and we're still paying for that mistake, perhaps there would be some credibility and recognition that they were being truthful. Instead, they either focus on the 'other' reasons for attacking, or they - like you - pretend that the mistake was somehow not a mistake, even though our intelligence was completely wrong and our money seems mostly wasted.

Cycloptichorn

If you want to guess at his motives, be my guest. However, based on anything he actually said, the motive was the belief that Iraq was highly likely to be hiding WMD or WMD programs. Green Witch was incorrect.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:06 pm
@Brandon9000,
I did read your post.

Bush said he made the statement in a speech prior to the invasion. If he didn't as you claim, then Bush is lying, is he not?
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:07 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
If you want to guess at his motives, be my guest. However, based on anything he actually said, the motive was the belief that Iraq was highly likely to be hiding WMD or WMD programs. Green Witch was incorrect.


You must have missed my post. Bush clearly stated, before March 20, 2003, that one goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq would be to spread democracy.

That doesn't mean that he didn't cite the existence of WMD as another reason for the invasion. It's just that your statement that Bush, before the invasion of Iraq, never gave "spreading democracy" as a reason to invade and occupy the country is not entirely correct.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:07 pm
@old europe,
I guess that's the speech Bush was referring to that Brandon doesn't want to see.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:08 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
He did not invade Iraq to spread democracy, even if he made reference later to spreading democracy.


President Bush, at the American Enterprise Institute's annual dinner on February 26, 2003:

Quote:
The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.)

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving into place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry.

[...]

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause.)


In the same speech he says:

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world, and we will not allow it."

He's certainly allowed to mention other fringe benefits, but WMD disarmament is the primary justification. You will never win this argument, because you're wrong. If I have to hold all of your heads in the toilet (figuratively) until you give up, then I will.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:09 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

I did read your post.

Bush said he made the statement in a speech prior to the invasion. If he didn't as you claim, then Bush is lying, is he not?

Again, give me a link to a speech in which Bush gave anything other than WMD disarmament as the primary motive for the invasion before or in the initial days of the invasion.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:10 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
can you find one quotation, given either before the invasion or during the initial hours of the invasion, in which he states any reason but Iraq's destruction of WMD and WMD programs as the fundamental motive for the invasion? Specifically, can you find one in which he gives "spreading freedom" as the reason it should be done?


I guess finding one quotation doesn't count if you can hold our heads in the toilet.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:11 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
In the same speech he says:

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world, and we will not allow it."

He's certainly allowed to mention other fringe benefits, but WMD disarmament is the primary justification.


I'm not denying that.

Brandon9000 wrote:
You will never win this argument, because you're wrong.


I'm wrong about what? That Bush cited "spreading democracy" as a goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, even before Iraq was actually invaded and occupied? I don't think so.


You, on the other hand, said that

Brandon9000 wrote:
He did not invade Iraq to spread democracy, even if he made reference later to spreading democracy.


Seems like you're calling Bush a liar.


Brandon9000 wrote:
If I have to hold all of your heads in the toilet (figuratively) until you give up, then I will.


Is that the conservative idea of having a debate, Brandon?
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:12 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
n which he states any reason but Iraq's destruction of WMD

Quote:
Again, give me a link to a speech in which Bush gave anything other than WMD disarmament as the primary motive for the invasion before or in the initial days of the invasion.

It seems you are trying to move the goal posts Brandon. Why is that?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:12 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon, just stop. We all understand that the WMD lie was used to sell the war; but do you understand that after the lie was revealed as such, Bush and his supporters started using the 'freedom' angle instead?

Also, there are major weaknesses with your original position that the invasion was ever justified, even with the WMD issue.

What was a 'fringe benefit' became the 'justification all along' once it was revealed that the war was based on lies, lies perpetrated by an administration who wanted to go to war in Iraq very badly, no matter what the intel said.

No amount of whitewashing on your part will change the truth of history, Brandon; that Bush blundered badly, sold a war on false premises to the American people, and then fumbled around and fucked it up for years. This has lead more than anything else to the tanking of the Republican party, who is going to be in a hole for some time. Can't you just admit this?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:15 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
can you find one quotation, given either before the invasion or during the initial hours of the invasion, in which he states any reason but Iraq's destruction of WMD and WMD programs as the fundamental motive for the invasion? Specifically, can you find one in which he gives "spreading freedom" as the reason it should be done?


I guess finding one quotation doesn't count if you can hold our heads in the toilet.

Finding one from 2005 doesn't.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:16 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
In the same speech he says:

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world, and we will not allow it."

He's certainly allowed to mention other fringe benefits, but WMD disarmament is the primary justification.


I'm not denying that.

Brandon9000 wrote:
You will never win this argument, because you're wrong.


I'm wrong about what? That Bush cited "spreading democracy" as a goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, even before Iraq was actually invaded and occupied? I don't think so.


You, on the other hand, said that

Brandon9000 wrote:
He did not invade Iraq to spread democracy, even if he made reference later to spreading democracy.


Seems like you're calling Bush a liar.


Brandon9000 wrote:
If I have to hold all of your heads in the toilet (figuratively) until you give up, then I will.


Is that the conservative idea of having a debate, Brandon?

You found a quotation in which he mentioned WMD disarmament as the primary justification, which proves my point, not yours.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:16 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:
can you find one quotation, given either before the invasion or during the initial hours of the invasion, in which he states any reason but Iraq's destruction of WMD and WMD programs as the fundamental motive for the invasion? Specifically, can you find one in which he gives "spreading freedom" as the reason it should be done?


I guess finding one quotation doesn't count if you can hold our heads in the toilet.

Finding one from 2005 doesn't.


Finding one from February 2003, on the other hand, does.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » BUSH IS GONE!
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/10/2024 at 01:37:51